View Full Version : Exorcisms: Real or Imaginary?
Ducky
10-24-2009, 10:06 PM
What proof do we need?
pack3tg0st
10-24-2009, 10:07 PM
Not real... nor imaginary.
Just not as described...
and not supernatural.
Ducky
10-24-2009, 10:11 PM
Not real... nor imaginary.
Just not as described...
and not supernatural.
Then what is it man?
pack3tg0st
10-24-2009, 10:16 PM
Its a psychological issue...
The reason that the exorcism works is because the patient believes they are actually possessed...
If I had more time... and wasn't dreading the amount of work I've gotta do in the next two hours, I'd find ya some papers on it lol
If ya still need em later, I'll find em.
Ducky
10-24-2009, 10:20 PM
If it's psychological, then how can those who are 'posessed' spew/cough up biological (unlike from their own bodiy) material from their mouths?
What about the leviating part?
What about the witnessess?
Are they ALL screwing around with us?
boycotteverything
10-24-2009, 11:23 PM
i think we shouldn't be averse to saying that we just don't know. the world is not just full of high strangeness but it is, in itself, highly strange. are there other planes of existence? and , if so, who inhabits them? that's a question that defies rational analysis. and yet we have reports, testimony from trusted witnesses that claim to have accessed other realms. all the rational skepticism in the world cannot disprove this testimony any more than can a rationalist explain the actuality and possibility of being itself. that study has been consigned to the poets and priests and speculative philosophers. to the imaginative dreamers. there is a universal logic that transcends our parochial corner of existence.
now none of this is tantamount to encouraging a credulous acceptance of any given report- but only to appeal to the open mind of our best instincts and our choicest leaps of enquiry. lacking that, life becomes a joyless interlude in the hell of causal efficacy. no surprises allowed. everything can be explained by pedestrian deduction and observation of apparent reality. exorcism becomes a matter for psychologists and other 'worldly' adults. but i'd rather choose to remain as a child open to wonder and absurdity- and to hold the spirit world in abeyance. i think we shouldn't be averse to saying we just don't know.
Martian Exile
10-24-2009, 11:32 PM
but i'd rather choose to remain as a child open to wonder and absurdity- and to hold the spirit world in abeyance.
A smite sir, as I said before the Amkon Edit "I believe in the Lock Ness Monster because it is FUN to believe."
What proof do we need?
None.
boycotteverything
10-24-2009, 11:41 PM
on this point we are in total agreement. joy is a matter of interest in life. and the uninteresting life is a waste of protoplasm. it's a shame that so many choice thoughts were wiped in the koidal colonic.
koidal colonic
What does that state about the material that was expelled...
pack3tg0st
10-25-2009, 12:32 AM
Coital colonic?
What the fuck are you doing man...
2g1c?
boycotteverything
10-25-2009, 12:34 AM
koidal colonic
What does that state about the material that was expelled...that it contained nutrients mixed with the detritus?
Ducky
10-25-2009, 12:35 AM
Koidal...
Coital...
Coitus?
:lol:
pack3tg0st
10-25-2009, 12:37 AM
Coitus is the noun...
coital is the adjective :P
Either way...
Coital Colonics just aren't right.
boycotteverything
10-25-2009, 12:37 AM
Coital colonic?
What the fuck are you doing man...
2g1c?
koid as in short for amkoid. my new pet name for the parlor kids. i can do that since i gave you both words to begin with.
Lexion
10-25-2009, 02:10 AM
Lack of orgasm.
Next ?
What proof do we need?
get a ouija board and have a play Ducky...then report back
would I muck with a ouija board .....no maam
Royal
10-25-2009, 04:03 PM
The best stories of possessions are not in movies.
If you grew up in the right neighborhood, someone can tell you some incredible stories.
Cogburn
10-25-2009, 08:23 PM
http://i544.photobucket.com/albums/hh340/TattooedGreenMan/Baphomets.jpg
(Just posting this so when Ducky views this thread again she has to look at something "satanic".)
pack3tg0st
10-25-2009, 08:24 PM
:lol:
Here is a case which happened over here, where the family thought their daughter was posessed by something bad . . . but they killed her trying to get rid of it . . . . . the court case was long and drawn out . . . . sad really 8) . . . .it was family members that decided to treat, sort it out . . . . and I'm quite sure it was real in their minds.
[offsite:1m47ti10]The five people convicted for the manslaughter of Janet Moses escaped jail because they were Maori, Labour MP Trevor Mallard says.
In the High Court at Wellington on Friday, Justice Simon France imposed community sentences on the five for their roles in the curse-lifting ceremony which killed the 22-year-old mother of two.
Read the judge's sentencing notes
Ms Moses drowned as water was forced into her mouth in an attempt to flush out demons.
The ceremony took place in 2007 at a small Wainuiomata flat, crammed with more than 30 whanau members.
Mr Mallard, MP for Hutt South and a Wainuiomata resident, made the claim on Labour Party blog site Red Alert.
''The fact that they weren't sent to prison because they are Maori just doesn't seem right to me,'' he wrote.
''I accept that they almost certainly would not reoffend and prison may be an expensive waste of time. And there are to many Maori in prison.
''But I am certain that a Pakeha exorcism that resulted in torture and death would result in a prison term - albeit not necessarily a long one.''
Speaking on Radio New Zealand this morning, Mr Mallard acknowledged it was not normal for an MP to comment on sentencings.
''It is a very unusual set of circumstances and I think in this case the judge got it wrong,'' he said.
''I think there is a lot of sympathy for the individuals involved. They did get caught up in some sort of hysteria. They were sleep deprived.
''But there's just not an acceptance either from the vast majority of Maori or Pakeha people that you can effectively torture someone for well over a day...causing death, and there not be a jail sentence.''
Mr Mallard stressed he did not want to be seen as putting pressure on Solicitor General David Collins QC to appeal the sentence.
He said it was, on the whole, not desirable for MPs to begin voicing their opinions on court cases.
''It wouldn't be (good) and you can't have people second guessing judges all the time. Clearly this is exceptional.
''If I was a minister, for example, part of the executive, it would have been less likely and less appropriate for me to do it.
''But I am a representative of my community and I think people shouldn't hide away views like this.''
Mr Mallard said he was against a separate judicial system for Maori and encouraged discussion which could lead to better understanding of issues.
Ad Feedback ''I do think we've got to have one system for one country. There can on occasion be sentences that are
''But I think you've got to do that on a rational, planned sentencing council-type basis rather than an ad-hoc decision to give a particular group what is seen to be and what is actually a very, very lenient sentence, probably based on their ethnicity.''
Mr Mallard was not alone in his criticism of the sentence. Prominent defence lawyer Barry Hart said last week the judge had been too lenient.
''It doesn't matter how you look at it, the sentences are really light,'' he told the Dominion Post.
Crown Law said it was too early to consider an appeal.
Prime Minister John Key said while he did not condone the actions of Ms Moses' killers, he believed they were ''truly misguided but not malicious''.
''If the judge really believed that they didn't go in there with the intent to kill, if they went in there because they truly in their hearts believed the person was possessed, then I'm not sure locking them up would achieve a lot.
''I'm all in favour of putting people in prison...but that's if they're a danger to society,'' he told NewstalkZB.
- NZPA
WHAT THE JUDGE SAID:
''In terms of culpability I conclude that the accused did what they genuinely thought was right. They were motivated solely by a desire to help Ms Moses, and I have no doubt they believed she was in serious danger because of the makutu. However they decided what had to be done without reference to Ms Moses herself, and without actually thinking about whether she wanted this sort of treatment to occur.''
''Whilst the offenders' culture provided a context, it would equally be wrong to over emphasise it, and equally wrong for the offenders to hide behind it and see all that has happened as an attack on that culture. That would also be far too easy and simplistic.''
''Culture placed a role in that it led Ms Moses' family to believe she had been afflicted by makutu. I am sure that Ms Moses herself also believed she was cursed. Probably her mental health contributed to that belief, but the reality is that had it been another family member afflicted, she like the others would have accepted makutu as the reason. However when happened on the Thursday night was not the acting out of any cultural or religious practice. Expert witnesses were clear they have never heard of such actions and their evidence is compelling.''
''A common response in other jurisdictions to this type of situation has been the imposition of a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The fact of imprisonment sends the necessary message, but the suspension of it allows recognition of the reduced culpability of the individual. That is not an available option here, and means that I must confront head-on the key issue of whether any of you should serve time in jail. I have concluded that the answer is no. I understand that to some that may not seem an adequate response to what happened...''
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2758783/Exorcism-culprits-spared-jail-because-they-were-Maori-MP[/offsite:1m47ti10]
Cogburn
10-25-2009, 08:39 PM
Exorcism requires an adherence to a form of demonology.
Notice that the article doesn't go into the details of why these modern Maori resulted to such practices.
I think there's ample evidence in our age that shamanic practices weren't always psychological flights of fancy.
It would seem that NZ law agrees with that sentiment.
cartoon
10-25-2009, 08:43 PM
Wise judge. New Zealand can be proud of him.
Mr Mallard, MP for Hutt South and a Wainuiomata resident, made the claim on Labour Party blog site Red Alert.
''The fact that they weren't sent to prison because they are Maori just doesn't seem right to me,'' he wrote.
''I accept that they almost certainly would not reoffend and prison may be an expensive waste of time. And there are to many Maori in prison.
''But I am certain that a Pakeha exorcism that resulted in torture and death would result in a prison term - albeit not necessarily a long one.''
Speaking on Radio New Zealand this morning, Mr Mallard acknowledged it was not normal for an MP to comment on sentencings.
''It is a very unusual set of circumstances and I think in this case the judge got it wrong,'' he said.
Trevor Mallard is a cock of the highest order.....he is a politician, so I guess you dont need me explain it
cartoon
10-25-2009, 09:12 PM
Fuck Trevor Mallard. The judge got it right in my view. The world needs more wise judges.
Exorcism requires an adherence to a form of demonology.
Notice that the article doesn't go into the details of why these modern Maori resulted to such practices.
I think there's ample evidence in our age that shamanic practices weren't always psychological flights of fancy.
It would seem that NZ law agrees with that sentiment.
the practitioners and followers of this sort of thing are no diff than any other people , some know what they are doing , some dont....but when you can claim an "inherrant" right through cultural association to practice your "bastadized" version of healing, their is no leagal requirement to first prove you are not a raving fucken lunatic
Fuck Trevor Mallard. The judge got it right in my view. The world needs more wise judges.
carry on like that and you'll be offered citizenship.....careful
cartoon
10-25-2009, 09:18 PM
i'm already a citizen. i'm in love with my kiwi cousins.
we..errr, are not toooooooooo keen on that sort of thing down here........there is evidence to show it is proportional to the increase in politicians
If it's psychological, then how can those who are 'posessed' spew/cough up biological (unlike from their own bodiy) material from their mouths?
What about the leviating part?
What about the witnessess?
Are they ALL screwing around with us?
placebo.....if the patient believes they are being given something that will help them, often just that psychological impetus is enough to bring about a change in their health.
i don't think we are anywhere near understanding the complexities of the human mind or brain.
howver i am quite comfortable saying that people aren't possesed by demons or ghosts or other rubbish, i prefer to think that a persons mind or physical brain is either damaged or wired differently and the "belief" that an exorcism has worked comes from an irrational need to explain the unknown.
placebo.....
....ran a fast finishing 4th at Moonee Valley last start :wink:
Cogburn
10-25-2009, 10:59 PM
placebo.....if the patient believes they are being given something that will help them, often just that psychological impetus is enough to bring about a change in their health.
i don't think we are anywhere near understanding the complexities of the human mind or brain.
howver i am quite comfortable saying that people aren't possesed by demons or ghosts or other rubbish, i prefer to think that a persons mind or physical brain is either damaged or wired differently and the "belief" that an exorcism has worked comes from an irrational need to explain the unknown.
Demons in the hermetic traditions (to which I subscribe) are psychological archtypes in the exact Jungian sense.
Exorcism is a ritual to rebalance a particular archtype, not so much as "expel" the demon.
Christians are weird.
placebo.....
....ran a fast finishing 4th at Moonee Valley last start :wink:
bears following then.
boycotteverything
10-25-2009, 11:29 PM
the bears are on ice skates. all bets are off.
the bears are on ice skates. all bets are off.
unless its a photo finish.
boycotteverything
10-25-2009, 11:44 PM
or they get shot
or they get shot
or the bear eats the horse.
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 12:08 AM
and then the russians shake down the crowd and close the track.
skunk
10-26-2009, 03:43 PM
Don't knock ghosts or demons until you experience something you can't explain mojo.
Who really knows for certain what is going on?
Cog does have a point though about demons, not really relevant in terms of ghostly experiences however.
Don't knock ghosts or demons until you experience something you can't explain mojo.
Who really knows for certain what is going on?
....very true skunk
I'm sure most people here would of done a ouija board when they were kids . . . do the lord pray so the bad one didn't come through . . . . have scary thing happen, when doing that kind of thing . . . we had the glass break, but like a windscreen, that freaked us out so much that was the end of it . . . .and another freaky experiance I had, a friend that was into collecting bones rocks etc and over here the maori bury their people a certain way, he'd dig them up and just happened to have a young girls bones in the hot water cupboard. This chick took one of the finger bones and put it on leather round her neck . . . I told her bad karma . . . anyway about 2-3 wks later the bone was returned, because she reckon all sort of bad luck had come her way . . . . :thegeneral:
Don't knock ghosts or demons until you experience something you can't explain mojo.
Who really knows for certain what is going on?
Cog does have a point though about demons, not really relevant in terms of ghostly experiences however.
ive experienced plenty of shit i dont understand skunk, i just don't feel the need to explain it as a supernatural event.
Cogburn
10-26-2009, 07:55 PM
Within my school of philosophy, the most important point in classification of the supernatural is not the dismissal of psychology, but its utmost appreciation.
As of current "technology", the concept of "I am" is still up for definition by any argument. Quite honestly, the argument itself has evolved only marginally past the point of Aristotle (who coined the term "metaphysics").
To discount any definition without complete, legitimate, scientific exploration only sells short the capacity for your own experience and wisdom.
The problem isn't that things "don't exist", so much that the science you are using to validate it is either incomplete or simply contextually inappropriate.
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 08:19 PM
Within my school of philosophy,this thread already graduated from that school.
ive experienced plenty of shit i dont understand skunk, i just don't feel the need to explain it as a supernatural event.
what would you term it as?
I think I see where you are coming from?
our world according to science is very orderly and structured, the events encompassed within that frame-work are what is deemed natural....so anything falling outside that can be considered "super"?
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 08:25 PM
the point is that whatever experience doesn't fit within our current view of 'the natural' belongs to 'the supernatural.' what's the problem? let me answer my own question here. the problem comes from forcing the unexplained into the paradigm of the known. that's not a very good way to think, i think.
what would you term it as?
Freaky shit!
I think I see where you are coming from?
Could you tell me coz i have no fucking idea!
our world according to science is very orderly and structured, the events encompassed within that frame-work are what is deemed natural....so anything falling outside that can be considered "super"?
ghosts, demons, gods, fairies, elves, flying pigs.
yes theres lots of weird, unexplainable shit that happens, i'd prefer to say, "fuck i dont what the hell it was" than "it was a fucking ghost man".
thats all that i'm sayin.
skunk
10-26-2009, 08:28 PM
yes theres lots of weird, unexplainable shit that happens, i'd prefer to say, "fuck i dont what the hell it was" than "it was a fucking ghost man".
thats all that i'm sayin.
I can agree with that.
Cogburn
10-26-2009, 08:29 PM
the point is that whatever experience doesn't fit within our current view of 'the natural' belongs to 'the supernatural.' what's the problem? let me answer my own question here. the problem comes from forcing the unexplained into the paradigm of the known. that's not a very good way to think, i think.
Perhaps your correct, although thunder and lightning would still be pretty scary if anyone else agreed with you.
Some people wish to ask, "What caused that?"
The answers are just not always simple.
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 08:31 PM
what would you term it as?
Freaky shit!
I think I see where you are coming from?
Could you tell me coz i have no fucking idea!
our world according to science is very orderly and structured, the events encompassed within that frame-work are what is deemed natural....so anything falling outside that can be considered "super"?
ghosts, demons, gods, fairies, elves, flying pigs.
yes theres lots of weird, unexplainable shit that happens, i'd prefer to say, "fuck i dont what the hell it was" than "it was a fucking ghost man".
thats all that i'm sayin.So we come full circle.
i think we shouldn't be averse to saying that we just don't know. the world is not just full of high strangeness but it is, in itself, highly strange. are there other planes of existence? and , if so, who inhabits them? that's a question that defies rational analysis. and yet we have reports, testimony from trusted witnesses that claim to have accessed other realms. all the rational skepticism in the world cannot disprove this testimony any more than can a rationalist explain the actuality and possibility of being itself. that study has been consigned to the poets and priests and speculative philosophers. to the imaginative dreamers. there is a universal logic that transcends our parochial corner of existence.
now none of this is tantamount to encouraging a credulous acceptance of any given report- but only to appeal to the open mind of our best instincts and our choicest leaps of enquiry. lacking that, life becomes a joyless interlude in the hell of causal efficacy. no surprises allowed. everything can be explained by pedestrian deduction and observation of apparent reality. exorcism becomes a matter for psychologists and other 'worldly' adults. but i'd rather choose to remain as a child open to wonder and absurdity- and to hold the spirit world in abeyance. i think we shouldn't be averse to saying we just don't know.
the point is that whatever experience doesn't fit within our current view of 'the natural' belongs to 'the supernatural.' what's the problem? let me answer my own question here. the problem comes from forcing the unexplained into the paradigm of the known. that's not a very good way to think, i think.
Perhaps your correct, although thunder and lightning would still be pretty scary if anyone else agreed with you.
Some people wish to ask, "What caused that?"
The answers are just not always simple.
can you cease and desist from making snse?....its scaring me :)
thats all that i'm sayin
its been my experience that what usually follows that statement is a quick e-kick to the head...lol
you win man :smokin:
Ducky
10-26-2009, 08:40 PM
Social conditioning frames our perceptions of what is real and what isn't.
So in other words, what seems 'supernatural' to some won't be the same for all.
If I personally, saw someone spinning their head around 360 degrees and projectile barfing pea soup out their piehole, I'd need a new change of undies :shock:
But that kind of stuff is only in the movies. I know that, and YOU know that.
Though there are some isolted instances that defy explanations.
I think I'd need to see something like that up close and personal (with a cam) to be able to prove it does exist. But then again...if I brought some iota of tangible proof to the table, it would still be scrutinized over and someone would eventually debunk it.
I wonder what 'kind' of evidence would suffice skeptics?
its ok Dux-Delux...we've assertained whats going on here.......everyone is correct
(have I dodged the boot?)
Ducky
10-26-2009, 08:51 PM
LOL @'Dux Delux' :D
flying pigs.
now now....just because that 800 pound of "dog-food" you backed last saturday is still running.... :lol:
I hope god intervened and cut the phone line to your mums place before she recieved your "tip-of-the-day" :twisted:
its been my experience that what usually follows that statement is a quick e-kick to the head...lol
you win man :smokin:
haha......never....lala would kick my ass. :)
no winning involved just different perspectives of the same experience.
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 09:02 PM
Perhaps your correct, although thunder and lightning would still be pretty scary if anyone else agreed with you.Errant thinking based in Materialism. There is no real contradiction between Scientism (materialism) and Transcendental Rationalism (pure reason.) The difference is in accepting the limits of empiricism as a basis for natural theory. Pure Reason allows for the possibility of a priori principles while materialism assumes and denies them at the same time in a paroxysm of bad faith.
Anyone who understands what I just said obviously has too much time on his hands- but is truly my brother.
haha......never....lala would kick my ass.
I here ya man.......I win most of our "debates" by at least 100 yards :whip: :eye:
Cogburn
10-26-2009, 09:11 PM
Errant thinking based in Materialism. There is no real contradiction between Scientism (materialism) and Transcendental Rationalism (pure reason.) The difference is in accepting the limits of empiricism as a basis for natural theory. Pure Reason allows for the possibility of a priori principles while materialism assumes and denies them at the same time in a paroxysm of bad faith.
Anyone who understands what I just said obviously has too much time on his hands- but is truly my brother.
Then perhaps I set myself up as a fool, but that has yet to stop me from exploring a thought to its logical conclusion. :wink:
I disagree that T.R. (for the sake of keystrokes) and scientism are antithetical in practice.
The reality of our world would seem to be measures of both in proportion, such proportion subject only to the context of the material being discussed.
One's personal application of the principals of T.R. provides the motivation for the materialism one makes manifest through action.
One must take action (even that of inaction), for that is the very nature of the universe in which we find ourselves.
I see your premise as not so much incompatible, but as symbiotic.
but is truly my brother.
soooo....how about lending me 5 hundy.......bro?
haha......never....lala would kick my ass.
I here ya man.......I win most of our "debates" by at least 100 yards :whip: :eye:
Their only one reason your naughty . . . .
[attachment=0:3n558qjs]MJZ2111.gif[/attachment:3n558qjs]
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 09:33 PM
Errant thinking based in Materialism. There is no real contradiction between Scientism (materialism) and Transcendental Rationalism (pure reason.) The difference is in accepting the limits of empiricism as a basis for natural theory. Pure Reason allows for the possibility of a priori principles while materialism assumes and denies them at the same time in a paroxysm of bad faith.
Anyone who understands what I just said obviously has too much time on his hands- but is truly my brother.
I disagree that T.R. (for the sake of keystrokes) and scientism are antithetical in practice.
There is no real contradiction between Scientism (materialism) and Transcendental Rationalism (pure reason.)
I don't see the two methods as antithetical. One is an outgrowth of Plato and the other from his pupil, Aristotle. Together, as modes of enquiry, they represent the antipodes of Dialectic from which all of Western Philosophy springs forth. So when you identify a symbiosis I'd have to agree. It's a matter of emphasis and preference in the end. But I incline to the great mystic- Plato. As my favorite Philosopher, AN Whitehead said, "All of Western Philosophy is a footnote to Plato."
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 09:41 PM
what is it that don't you understand about 'Get Rich Slow?'
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 09:42 PM
hahahahahahahahahah! jesus i think i just peed my pants!!
hahahahahahahahahah! jesus i think i just peed my pants!!
be fair man......its not like that isnt a common daily occurence
dont cower from the storm....learn to dance in the rain
....or the urine :lol:
love you man
Cogburn
10-26-2009, 09:59 PM
I don't see the two methods as antithetical. One is an outgrowth of Plato and the other from his pupil, Aristotle. Together, as modes of enquiry, they represent the antipodes of Dialectic from which all of Western Philosophy springs forth. So when you identify a symbiosis I'd have to agree. It's a matter of emphasis and preference in the end. But I incline to the great mystic- Plato. As my favorite Philosopher, AN Whitehead said, "All of Western Philosophy is a footnote to Plato."
Fool I was.
We argue to agree.
hahahahahahahahahah! jesus i think i just peed my pants!!
just empty the bag grandpa. :)
boycotteverything
10-26-2009, 10:59 PM
hahahahahahahahahah! jesus i think i just peed in mojo's dope stash!!
just empty the bag grandpa. :)fixt
hahahahahahahahahah! jesus i think i just said something without saying dialectic.....ohh shit!!
just empty the bag grandpa. :)fixt
edited for clarity.